JUDGMENT 1. :- The appellants four in number, were the accused on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sambhar Lake, Distt. Jaipur bearing Sessions Case No.4/9. Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated April 9, 2003 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under : 1 SHYAM SINGH U/s. 302/34 IPC Sentence of death 2. LADU SINGH : U/s 201/34 IPC 5 Years RI and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to further suffer 6 months SI. 3 MADAN SINGH : U/s. 302/34 IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to further undergo one year S.I. 4 RAM SINGH : U/s. 302/34 IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to further undergo one year S.I. U/s. 201/34 IPC 5 Years RI and fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to further undergo 6 months SI. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently but the sentences passed in default of making payment of fine were ordered to run one after the other. 2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge Sambharlak made reference (bearing Death Reference No.2/2003) under Section 366 Cr.P.C., for confirmation of death sentence awarded to appellants Shyam Singh and Ladu Singh, who also assailed the findings of the learned Judge along with the appellants Madan Singh and Ram Singh by preferring appeal No.572/2003. 3. It is well settled that on a reference for confirmation of the sentence of death, the High Court is under an obligation to proceed in accordance with the provisions of sections 366 and 368 Cr.P.C. The High Court must not only to see that the order passed by the Sessions Court is correct but also to examine the entire evidence itself independently of the Sessions Court's appraisal and assessment of that evidence. 4. Bearing in mind the above principles we may straightway proceed to state, with brevity, the case of the prosecution presented for our scrutiny. On June 4, 1995, at 1.30 p.m. Bhagwan Sahai (PW.11) Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Chakwara telephonically informed the Police Station Fagi that a dead body in half-burnt condition was lying by the side of the road of village Bharatpura. On receiving the information SHO Badri Prasad along with other police constables rushed to the spot and found half burnt body of a woman aged around 20-25 years in a pit surrounded by bushes. On receiving the information SHO Badri Prasad along with other police constables rushed to the spot and found half burnt body of a woman aged around 20-25 years in a pit surrounded by bushes. FIR bearing No.118/95 under sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation commenced. Photographs of the dead-body were snapped. Inquest report and seizure memos of half burnt clothes, steel anklet, yellow thread and pieces of bangles found on the dead-body, were drawn. Autopsy on the dead-body was conducted. News item in regard to recovery of body of unknown female got published. On June 17, 1995 Moti Singh and Jagdish Singh came to the Police Station Fagi and on seeing the photographs of the body of unknown female, they identified half burnt clothes as belonging to Manoj Kanwar. Statements of Moti Singh and Jagdish Singh were recorded. Appellants Shyam Singh and Madan Singh were arrested. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. After the arrest of Ladu Singh and Ram Singh investigation pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. concluded and charge sheet was also filed against them. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Lake. Charges under section 302 in the alternative 302/34 and 201 Indian Penal Code in the alternative 201/34 Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellants who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 21 witnesses and got exhibited 24 documents. In their explanation under section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants claimed innocence and stated that death of Manoj Kanwar was natural and here death certificate was issued on June 8, 1995 by the Municipal Corporation Jaipur. Moti Singh, the brother of Marto . Kanwar, on June 11, 1995 lodged FIR bearing No"84/95 with the Police Station Pushkar (Ajmer) and a case under sections 302, 201 and 498A Indian Penal Code was registered. Judicial Magistrate Pushkar vide judgment dated September 22, 2000 although passed order of conviction but the Special Judge SC/ST Court vide order dated Feb. 25, 2002 acquitted the accused persons. Appellant Shyam Singh got himself examined in support of defence version. Learned trial judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. 5. Judicial Magistrate Pushkar vide judgment dated September 22, 2000 although passed order of conviction but the Special Judge SC/ST Court vide order dated Feb. 25, 2002 acquitted the accused persons. Appellant Shyam Singh got himself examined in support of defence version. Learned trial judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. 5. The prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence which broadly speaking is as under- (i) Deceased Manoj Kanwar after her marriage with appellant Shyam Singh, used to be ill treated by her in-laws therefore she started residing in her parental house and lived there for a period of about one and half year. Thereafter her father in law Ladu Singh took her back on the pretext that she would not be harassed any more. Manoj Kanwar came to Jaipur to live in 'Assam House' where all the four appellants resided together. (ii) On receiving the information of death of Manoj Kanwar, brother and uncle reached at village Doongaria Khurd (native village of Ladu Singh) the appellants told them that Manoj Kanwar was cremated at Jhotwara cremation centre Jaipur. (iii) On June 4, 1995 a news item was flashed in daily newspapers that a half burnt body of unknown female was recovered by the Police Station Fagi. Moti Singh and Jagdish Singh went to the Police Station Fagi and identified the clothes, steel anklet and yellow thread found on the dead-body as belonging to Manoj Kanwar. (iv) As per autopsy report, dead-body was of unknown female aged about 20-25 years and findings in regard to cause of death looking to the internal appearance of organs and viscera, were in favour of strangulation Asphyxial death. (v) On June 3, 1995 the appellants were seen taking Manoj Kanwar in a jeep. On being questioned the appellants replied that she was taken to the Hospital. (vi) A day before her death, Manoj Kanwar persuaded her neighbour Manju to write a letter to her father indicating the ill treatment of her in-laws. (vii) The appellants went to their near relative Nathu Singh with dead body of Manoj Kanwar lying in a jeep and made request to cremate the dead body at his village Chandawas (Fagi) when Nathu Singh did not agree, Ladu Singh, Shyam Singh and Ram Singh proceeded in the jeep with the dead body. (vii) The appellants went to their near relative Nathu Singh with dead body of Manoj Kanwar lying in a jeep and made request to cremate the dead body at his village Chandawas (Fagi) when Nathu Singh did not agree, Ladu Singh, Shyam Singh and Ram Singh proceeded in the jeep with the dead body. (viii) Appellants falsely pleaded that Manoj Kanwar's death was natural and Municipal Corporation Jaipur issued her death certificate on June 8, 1995. 6. In order to adjudge as to whether chain of circumstances has been linked up or not, let us advert to the testimony of witnesses examined at the trial. The evidence of Dr. N.S. Rajawat (PW.4) who performed autopsy on the dead body shows that age of unknown woman was around 20 to 25 years and from her clothes she appeared to be a Hindu woman. The autopsy was conducted on June 4, 1995 and the death of woman occurred some 18 to 20 hours back. The body was in a badly burnt condition. Cause of her death was asphyxia due to strangulation and the body was burnt after causing the death. 7. Gopal Singh (PW.1) is the brother in law of the deceased Manoj Kanwar. According to him the in-laws of Manoj Kanwar used to harass and humiliate her. Satya Narain (PW.2) is the photographer who snapped the photographs of the dead body. Ramchandra (PW.3) and Ram Lal (PW.8) are the motbirs of site plan of the place of occurrence. Kailash Chand (PW.5), carried three packets and delivered them at FSL. Ram Chandra s/o Kalyan (PW.6) and Panchu (PW.2) are the motbirs of seizure memo of bangles, anklet and burnt clothes. They put their signatures on the inquest report also. Jagdish Singh (PW.12) is the uncle of Manoj Kanwar who testified that her in-laws used to demand dowry and ill treat her. She therefore left her in-laws house and started residing in her parental house. Ladu Singh then took her back on the pretext that they would behave properly with her but after about twenty days he received information that Manoj Kanwar was killed. He alongwith Moti Singh then reached to village Doongaria and found the appellants observing last rites of Manoj Kanwar. He straightway went to the police. In the evening of the said day he came to know that a half burnt dead body was recovered by P.S. Fagi. He alongwith Moti Singh then reached to village Doongaria and found the appellants observing last rites of Manoj Kanwar. He straightway went to the police. In the evening of the said day he came to know that a half burnt dead body was recovered by P.S. Fagi. He along with Moti Singh went to P.S. Fagi and identified the half burnt clothes of the photographs as belonging to Manoj Kanwar. Moti Singh (PW.20) the brother of Manoj Kanwar corroborated the testimony of Jagdish Singh. Ganesh Meena (PW.13) and Kanti Chand Sharma (PW.15) had seen the appellants taking Manoj Kanwar in a jeep and on being asked as to where they were going, they told that as Manoj Kanwar was pregnant, they were taking her to the Hospital. Manju (PW.14) is the daughter of Ganesh Meena. In her deposition she stated that a day before her death Manoj Kanwar came to her and requested her to write a letter to her father indicating the ill-treatment of her in-laws. Nathu Singh (PW.16) is the resident of village Chandawas (Fagi). He is the brother in law of appellant Ladu Singh. Nathu Singh deposed that Ladu Singh, Madan Singh, Ram Singh and Shyam Singh came to him around 10-11 PM in a jeep and told him that wife of Shyam Singh was dead and they waited to cremate her in village Chandawas. Nathu Singh declined to provide any assistance to them and told them to take the dead body to their own village. Ladu Singh, Shyam Singh and Ram Singh proceeded ahead in the jeep with the dead body but Madan Singh did not accompany them. G.L. Kataria (PW.18) was posted as Tehsildar Fagi on September 26, 1995. He conducted identification proceedings of the clothes, anklet and yellow thread. According to him Moti Singh identified the articles as belonging to Manoj Kanwar. Badri Prasad I.O. (PW.19) conducted the investigation of the case and got exhibited necessary memos drawn by him in the course of investigation. Appellant Shyam Singh (DW.1) in his deposition stated that P.S. Pushkar submitted charge sheet under Section 498A IPC. Although Judicial Magistrate convicted Ram Singh, Ladu Singh and Madan Kanwar (sic 'Singh' ?) under Section 498A Indian Penal Code but the appellate court set aside the conviction and acquitted them. 8. Appellant Shyam Singh (DW.1) in his deposition stated that P.S. Pushkar submitted charge sheet under Section 498A IPC. Although Judicial Magistrate convicted Ram Singh, Ladu Singh and Madan Kanwar (sic 'Singh' ?) under Section 498A Indian Penal Code but the appellate court set aside the conviction and acquitted them. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants canvassed that the trial court neither properly appreciated nor critically examined the statements of the prosecution witnesses and committed illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellants. It is further urged that simultaneously an FIR was registered at Police Station Pushkar Distt. Ajmer bearing No.84/95 under section 302/201 Indian Penal Code in which on the same set of evidence challan was filed under section 498A Indian Penal Code and the appellate court acquitted the accused persons in that case. In such circumstances the impugned convictions not sustainable and the judgment of the learned trial court deserves to be set aside. According to the learned counsel, the trial court committed illegality in not considering the defence version properly. It is also urged that the prosecution has failed to establish that the dead-body of unknown female allegedly recovered was of Manoj Kanwar. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and canvassed that the chain of circumstances has been linked up and the evidence collected by the prosecution is such that on every reasonable hypothesis the conclusion is that the appellants are guilty. 10. The fact situation' of the case as noticed by us may be summarised thus (i.) The appellant Ladu Singh is the father of appellants Shyam Singh and Ram Singh whereas appellant Madan Singh is the son-in-law of Ladu Singh. (ii) Manoj Kanwar was married to Shyam Singh but she used to be ill-treated by her in-laws and was forced to reside in her parental house. She resided with her parents for a period of about one and half year thereafter. Thereafter her father in law took her back on the pretext that she would not be harassed any more. Incidentally after coming to her in-laws house Manoj Kanwar could survive for twenty days only. (iii) On the date of her death all the four appellants were residing together at Jaipur in a house known as 'Assam House'. But the appellants decided to perform last rites of Manoj Kanwar at their ancestral village Doongaria Khurd. Incidentally after coming to her in-laws house Manoj Kanwar could survive for twenty days only. (iii) On the date of her death all the four appellants were residing together at Jaipur in a house known as 'Assam House'. But the appellants decided to perform last rites of Manoj Kanwar at their ancestral village Doongaria Khurd. (iv) On receiving the information of death of Manoj Kanwar when her brother Nathu Singh and uncle Jagdish reached at village Doongaria Khurd, they were told by the appellants that Manoj Kanwar was cremated at Jhotwara cremation Centre Jaipur. (v) On June 4, 1995, dead-body of woman aged about 20-25 years in half burnt condition was found lying on a pit surrounded by bushes near village Bharatpura (Fagi). 'Police Station Fagi recovered the dead-body and its photographs were flashed in the News papers. (vi) Moti Singh and Jagdish identified the burnt clothes anklet and yellow thread found on the dead body as belonging to Manoj Kanwar. (vii) As per autopsy report of the dead-body the cause of death was Asphyxia due to strangulation. (viii) Manoj Kanwar a day before her death requesting her next door neighbour Manju (PW.14) to write a letter to her father indicated ill-treatment of her in-laws with her. (ix) Ganesh Meena (PW.13) and Kanti Chandra Sharma (PW.15) had seen the appellants taking Manoj Kanwar in a jeep. On being questioned the appellants gave the reply that she was taken to the Hospital. (x) Nathu Singh (PW.16) a dose relative of the appellants deposed against the appellants. According to him the appellants came to him in the night with the dead-body of Manoj Kanwar lying in a jeep and made a request to cremate her in his village but he declined to give any assistance to them. (xi) Although in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants stated that death of Manoj Kanwar was natural and her death certificate was issued on June 8, 1995 by the Municipal Council Jaipur but no such certificate was on record. 11. It is trite that an accused can be condemned a convict only on clear cogent and unimpeachable evidence and if only a chain of circumstantial evidence has been so forged as to rule out the possibility of any other reasonable hypothesis excepting the guilt of the accused. 11. It is trite that an accused can be condemned a convict only on clear cogent and unimpeachable evidence and if only a chain of circumstantial evidence has been so forged as to rule out the possibility of any other reasonable hypothesis excepting the guilt of the accused. We have therefore to find out whether the evidence adduced at the trial can be regarded sufficient to base the conviction of the appellants. 12. The first circumstantial evidence against the appellants is that after her marriage with Shyam Singh Manoj Kanwar used to be ill-treated and when harassment reached at the saturated point, she left her in-laws house and started residing with her parents where she lived for a period of more than one and half year. It was on the pursuation of appellant Ladu Singh she came back to her in-laws house where she died within twenty days of her arrival. Jagdish Singh (PW.12) and Moti Singh (PW.20) have proved this circumstance and we find nothing on record to brand these witnesses as unreliable. Thus we find the first circumstance established against the appellants. 13. The second circumstance against the appellants is that on receiving the information of death of Manoj Kanwar when Jagdish and Moti Singh met the appellants; the appellants told them that Manoj Kanwar was cremated at Jhotwara Cremation Centre, Jaipur. The testimony of Jagdish Singh and Moti Singh had been corroborated by the appellants themselves by stating in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. that death of Manoj Kanwar was natural and her death certificate was issued by Municipal Corporation Jaipur. The second circumstance thus stands established against the appellants. 14. In order to establish third circumstance, the prosecution again placed reliance on the testimony of Jagdish and Moti Singh, who deposed that News item was flashed by the Police Station Fagi in the news papers and they rushed to Police Station Fagi, where they got identified the clothes found on the dead body as belonging to Manoj Kanwar. G.L. Kataria (PW.18) who was posted as Tehsildar Fagi on September 26, 1995 stated that he conducted identification proceedings of the burnt clothes, anklet and yellow thread found on the dead-body and Moti Singh identified the articles as belonging to her sister Manoj Kanwar. G.L. Kataria (PW.18) who was posted as Tehsildar Fagi on September 26, 1995 stated that he conducted identification proceedings of the burnt clothes, anklet and yellow thread found on the dead-body and Moti Singh identified the articles as belonging to her sister Manoj Kanwar. Badri Prasad, Investigating Officer (PW.19) deposed that on receiving telephonic information he rushed to the spot and found a half burnt dead body of a woman aged about 20-25 years in a pit surrounded by bushes, by the side of the road near villa a Bharatpura (Fagi). Thus it is established that half burnt body of woman aged about 20-25 years was recovered by the P.S. Fagi on June 4, 1995. Half-burnt clothes, anklet and yellow thread were found on the dead body and the said articles were identified by Moti Singh as belonging to his sister Manoj Kanwar. 15. Autopsy on the dead body of unknown female was conducted by Dr. N.S. Rajawat (PW.4) and as per autopsy report Ex.P.8, the cause of her death was asphyxia due to strangulation. Therefore the circumstance that death of unknown female was homicidal is also found established. 16. The next circumstance against the appellant is that on June 3, 1995 they were seen carrying Manoj Kanwar in a jeep. To establish this circumstance the prosecution examined Ganesh Meena (PW.13) and Kanti Chand Sharma (PW.15). According to these witnesses they had seen a jeep in front of Assam House and the appellants were in the process of taking Manoj Kanwar in that jeep. On being questioned by witness Ganesh Meena the appellants told him that they were taking Manoj Kanwar to the Hospital as she was pregnant. On a close scrutiny of their testimony we find them trustworthy. From their cross examination nothing could be brought about that could be of any help to the appellants. It is thus established that the appellants took Manoj Kanwar in a jeep on June 3, 1995. 17. The next circumstance against the appellants is that a day before her death Manoj Kanwar pursuated her neighbour Manju to write a letter to her father informing him about the cruel acts of her in-laws. Manju (PW.14) is the daughter of Ganesh Meena. In the cross examination her statement could not be shattered and we see no reason for not placing reliance on her testimony. This circumstance is also established against the appellants. 18. Manju (PW.14) is the daughter of Ganesh Meena. In the cross examination her statement could not be shattered and we see no reason for not placing reliance on her testimony. This circumstance is also established against the appellants. 18. Another important circumstance against the appellants is that they had gone to the house of their near relative Nathu Singh (PW.16) with the dead body of Manoj Kanwar lying in a jeep. Nathu Singh's house is situated at village Chandawas (Fagi). He is brother in-law of appellant Ladu Singh. In his deposition Nathu Singh stated that all the four appellants came to his house around 10-11 PM with the dead body of Manoj Kanwar lying in a jeep and requested him to cremate Manoj Kanwar in village Chandawas but he did not agree and told them to take the dead body of Manoj Kanwar to their own village. Learned counsel 'for the appellants made an attempt to persuade us to discard the testimony of Nathu Singh on the reason that he is habitual drunkard and wanted to extricate money from the appellants, when he could not get money he gave false evidence. We find no substance in the submission of learned counsel. We have cautiously scanned the testimony of Nathu Singh and we find ring of truth in his testimony. Statement of Nathu Singh gets corroboration from the testimony of Ganesh Meena and Kantichand Sharma, who had seen the appellants taking Manoj Kanwar in a jeep. It is difficult to believe that a brother-in-law would depose against his near telatives just because his lust of drinking was not satisfied by them. Testimony of Nathu Singh could not be shattered in the cross examination and the circumstance that the appellants had gone to village Chanda was (Fagi) with dead body of Manoj Kanwar in a jeep also stands established. 19. The most formidable circumstance against the appellants is that they gave false explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., according to which Manoj Kanwar's death was natural and Municipal Corporation Jaipur issued her death certificate on June 8, 1995. It is borne out from the testimony of Jagdish Singh and Moti Singh that appellants told them that Manoj Kanwar was cremated at Jhotwara Cremation Centre, Jaipur. It is borne out from the testimony of Jagdish Singh and Moti Singh that appellants told them that Manoj Kanwar was cremated at Jhotwara Cremation Centre, Jaipur. It also a pears that the appellant Shyam Singh himself appeared as defence witness but he neither said that death of Manoj Kanwar was natural nor he deposed that Municipal Corporation, Jaipur ever issued her death certificate. Death Certificate of Manoj Kanwar has not been placed on record and we do not find any material which could establish that Manoj Kanwar was cremated at Jhotwara Cremation Centre, Jaipur and Municipal Corporation Jaipur ever issued her death certificate. Thus the explanation offered by the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is found to be untrue. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in (1) Swapan Patre Vs. State of W.B. (1999) 9 SCC 242 , (2) State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 , (3) Anthony D'Souza Vs. State of Karnataka (2003)1 SCC 259 and (4) Alamgir Vs. State (NCT Delhi) (2003) 1 SCC 21 indicated that in a case of circumstantial evidence when the accused offers an explanation and that explanation is found to be untrue then the same offers an additional link in the chain of circumstances to complete the chain. In the case on hand the false explanation offered by the appellants can be counted as providing "a missing link" for completing the chain. 20. Further contention of learned counsel is that a case was registered at P.S. Pushkar (Ajmer) under Section 302/201 and 498A Indian Penal Code on the same set of evidence against the appellants Ladu Singh, his wife and Shyam Singh wherein the appellate court acquitted them, therefore, the appellants could not have been convicted again. We find no substance in the contention. Undoubtedly FIR under Section 302/201 and 498A Indian Penal Code was registered at P.S. Pushkar, but on finding that case under Section 302/201 Indian Penal Code was already registered against the appellants for the murder of Manoj Kanwar, P.S. Pushkar restricted the investigation to Section 498A Indian Penal Code only and charge sheet was filed only under Section 498A IPC. Thus order of acquittal in a case registered under Section 498A Indian Penal Code has no relevancy to the facts of the instant case. 21. Thus order of acquittal in a case registered under Section 498A Indian Penal Code has no relevancy to the facts of the instant case. 21. In the ultimate analysis we find a combination of facts creating a network through which there is no escape for the appellants. On June 3, 1995 the appellants were seen taking Manoj Kanwar in a jeep in front of their house at Jaipur. Then they were seen at village Chandawas (Fagi) with the dead body of Manoj Kanwar. Next day i.e. on June 4, 1995 dead body of a female aged 20-25 years was found in a pit at village Bharatpura (Fagi) in a half burnt condition. Cause of her death was asphyxia due to strangulation. The appellants did not go to Jaipur but went to their village Doongaria Khurd and started performing last rites of Manoj Kanwar. They gave false explanation that Manoj Kanwar was cremated at Jhotwara Cremation Centre Jaipur and Municipal Corporation Jaipur issued her death certificate. Relations of appellants with Manoj Kanwar were strained. The articles found on the dead body were identified as belonging to Manoj Kanwar. The evidence collected by the prosecution is qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis the conclusion is that the appellants are guilty. We find that the chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellants is complete the incapable of any explanation or any other hypothesis than of the guilt of the appellants. 22. That takes us to the quantum of sentence. For deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence the aggravating and mitigating factors are to be delicately balanced in a dispassionate manner. In (5) Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 , Hon'ble Supreme Court moved by compassionate sentiments of human feelings ailed that sentence of death should not be passed except the "rarest of rare cases". On the facts of the instant case we find ourselves unable to make a distinction in the case of appellants Shyam Singh and Ladu Singh and appellants Ram Singh and Madan Singh so far as the imposition of sentence is concerned. Since the appellants Ram Singh and Madan Singh have been awarded imprisonment for life, we think that sentence of death imposed on the appellants Shyam Singh and Ladu Singh should not be confirmed by us. Since the appellants Ram Singh and Madan Singh have been awarded imprisonment for life, we think that sentence of death imposed on the appellants Shyam Singh and Ladu Singh should not be confirmed by us. Taking the totality of circumstances we find that this case is not amongst the "rarest of rare cases". While confirming their conviction, we are constrained to commute the sentence of death passed on the appellants Shyam Singh and Ladu Singh into one for imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to further undergo one year simple imprisonment. We answer the death reference accordingly. 23. In the result the appeal of appellants Shyam Singh and Ladu Singh is partly allowed as indicated herein above and death sentence awarded to them shall stand modified and instead they will have to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Their conviction under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 Indian Penal Code stands confirmed. Appeal of appellants Madan Singh and Ram Singh is dismissed and conviction of Madan Singh under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and Ram Singh under Section 302/34 and 201/34 Indian Penal Code shall stand confirmed.Death Reference Not Confirmed and Appeal No. 572/03 Partly Allowed. *******